Bug#753620: [gnudatalanguage-devel] Fwd: Re: Bug#753620: wishlist: idl/gdl-written software
On 07/04/2014 03:25 PM, Sylwester Arabas wrote: - how to make these packages usable for IDL / PV-WAVE users? Since IDL is non-free, I would consider this not as a primary goal. I would concentrate on GDL. I wonder what Sywester means by making useable... - should idlastro be splitted into multiple subpackages? I would split it, if the different parts are somehow usable independently. Also, not all packages may be usable under GDL (yet), right? Those are tons of IDL script files. I doubt we can tell if a particular script will fail or not, since it depends on how it is used and the history. I mean, a script that makes nice plots may pass for double precision data, and fail on integer data, a tool using the cursor may crash only when the user clicks where nobodoy ever would have thought clicking possible, etc... Another point is that this idlastro --- which by the way, is the same as astrolib, no? is a bunch of not-so-well-if-any maintained files, do we want to support (read: inherit the problems of) them? My suggestion: we make a small installer-like script that will start at the first use of GDL, that ask for downloading idlastro+coyotelib+mpfit directly from their respective sites (see http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/). May be do the same for gsshsg data, as well. No need of handling that at debian level. best Gilles attachment: gilles_duvert.vcf
Bug#725957: Bug#751718: RFP: Python GDL module - Python / GNU Data Language bridge
Dear Mr. Beckert, all gdl developers, I am perplexed by the apparent necessity for gdl to run on non-intel platforms such as powerpc to be properly accepted by the debian distribution. The point is, gdl is, until further notice, a free replacement of IDL to be used to run instrumental data reduction pipelines, etc. This means that the pipelines exist, are already in use with IDL, so they actually run on intel architectures only. This explains also why gdl developers develop solely on those architectures (they have IDL in parallel to compare results, etc.). Obviously, it explains also why we are bound to find bugs when going to ppc architectures. (only one compilation bug seems even ridiculoulsy few!). My advice for what it is worth: In view of this, and to stick to the alleged rationale for GDL, I think it is best to restrict the compilation of gdl to platforms, i.e., Intel 32 and 64 bits. Doing otherwise, although an interesting possibility, would, in my opinion, add suspicion about the motives of providing a free clone of IDL. Best regards to all, and thanks to Axel for your support for gdl in debian. Gilles Duvert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
